Dominguez v. Stimpson Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dominguez v. Stimpson Manufacturing Corp.

207 A.D.2d 375, 616 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8218

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 8, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 375 (Dominguez v. Stimpson Manufacturing Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dominguez v. Stimpson Manufacturing Corp., 207 A.D.2d 375, 616 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated January 10, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs served process only by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a. The defendant did not return the acknowledgement. ”The mailing of process pursuant to CPLR 312-a does not effect personal service * * * If the acknowledgment of receipt is not mailed or returned to the sender, the sender is required to effect personal service in another manner” (Matter of Shenko Elec. v Hartnett, 161 AD2d 1212, 1213; see also, Nagy v Heuss House Drop in Shelter for the Homeless, 198 AD2d 115; Patterson v Balaquiot, 188 AD2d 275). Since the plaintiffs did not attempt another manner of service, the service was defective. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated January 10, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs served process only by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a. The defendant did not return the acknowledgement. ”The mailing of process pursuant to CPLR 312-a does not effect personal service * * * If the acknowledgment of receipt is not mailed or returned to the sender, the sender is required to effect personal service in another manner” (Matter of Shenko Elec. v Hartnett, 161 AD2d 1212, 1213; see also, Nagy v Heuss House Drop in Shelter for the Homeless, 198 AD2d 115; Patterson v Balaquiot, 188 AD2d 275). Since the plaintiffs did not attempt another manner of service, the service was defective. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 375, 616 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominguez-v-stimpson-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack